Live data from Hacker News

Founder Friendly

avc.com

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Founder Friendly

#11
post #8

For those wondering about the allusion to Hatching Twitter, it describes in detail how, when Ev was CEO, Fred and the board told him he was doing a fantastic job and while secretly meeting with Jack and coming up with a plan to push Ev out and bring in Dick Costolo as CEO (with Jack under him). Here's a quote from the book after Ev was told he was out with a vicious quote from Fred: Williams, stunned, picked up the p…

This is a great example of how a company was undone by greedy VCs. A little history lesson. The founders of Twitter really believed in a vibrant ecosystem for Twitter. They gave the developer community a slew of APIs, gracious quotas, and support. The ecosystem thrived and created dozens of major companies that made Twitter truly useful. The user numbers grew as well because those very same companies marketed their n…

I know that's a very comforting line of thought but it rings a bit false. Without the funds from the LPs backing the VCs there would have been no Twitter and no ecosystem of apps to begin with.

I agree it sucks that Twitter shafted its developers, but the LPs wanted to get paid. They don't get into VC to back charities. The VCs are just repping their LPs when they do this stuff.

Re: Founder Friendly

#12
post #9
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Other portfolio investments of Fred's have followed a similar pattern of having the original CEO pushed out once they get to a certain level of success. And honestly, they should. Managing a company through 50, 100, 150, 500 and 1,000+ employee milestones requires very different leadership skillsets. There are very few founders who (1) understand this (2) are willing to party ways with their company (3) can navigat…

Zuck was about to be fired as well. The board realized they could not fire him because he had a very iron clad founder friendly legal construct. That's when Sandberg came into the picture. Also, Zuck made Sandberg promise she would never go after his position before she came on.

Citations?

Re: Founder Friendly

#13
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great example of how a company was undone by greedy VCs. A little history lesson. The founders of Twitter really believed in a vibrant ecosystem for Twitter. They gave the developer community a slew of APIs, gracious quotas, and support. The ecosystem thrived and created dozens of major companies that made Twitter truly useful. The user numbers grew as well because those very same companies marketed their n…

I know that's a very comforting line of thought but it rings a bit false. Without the funds from the LPs backing the VCs there would have been no Twitter and no ecosystem of apps to begin with. I agree it sucks that Twitter shafted its developers, but the LPs wanted to get paid. They don't get into VC to back charities. The VCs are just repping their LPs when they do this stuff.

Not really how VCs work. Each VC is made up of funds. When EV was CEO and Twitter was the size it was, a lot of your fund's success might hinge on one or two companies in your portfolio. Without them exiting, it is hard to raise the next fund. If you can cash out your companies, show a huge return, it gets easier to raise your next fund at favorable terms.

Re: Founder Friendly

#14
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that's a very comforting line of thought but it rings a bit false. Without the funds from the LPs backing the VCs there would have been no Twitter and no ecosystem of apps to begin with. I agree it sucks that Twitter shafted its developers, but the LPs wanted to get paid. They don't get into VC to back charities. The VCs are just repping their LPs when they do this stuff.

Not really how VCs work. Each VC is made up of funds. When EV was CEO and Twitter was the size it was, a lot of your fund's success might hinge on one or two companies in your portfolio. Without them exiting, it is hard to raise the next fund. If you can cash out your companies, show a huge return, it gets easier to raise your next fund at favorable terms.

You seem to be backing up what I was saying. The VC's LPs want huge returns. The VCs also want huge returns. The Twitter board chose the path it did to create those returns.

Re: Founder Friendly

#15
post #9
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Other portfolio investments of Fred's have followed a similar pattern of having the original CEO pushed out once they get to a certain level of success. And honestly, they should. Managing a company through 50, 100, 150, 500 and 1,000+ employee milestones requires very different leadership skillsets. There are very few founders who (1) understand this (2) are willing to party ways with their company (3) can navigat…

Zuck was about to be fired as well. The board realized they could not fire him because he had a very iron clad founder friendly legal construct. That's when Sandberg came into the picture. Also, Zuck made Sandberg promise she would never go after his position before she came on.

> Zuck was about to be fired as well. The board realized they could not fire him

Your statement contradicts itself. He was not about to be fired, his legal standing guaranteed that could not occur. The investors and board fully understood the context the entire time, they invested knowing that it was Zuckerberg's kingdom. Besides, he was the board legally.

Re: Founder Friendly

#16
I am glad this whole charade of investors pretending to be founder friendly is finally getting over. There isn't / has never been such a thing as "founder friendly". Investors pretend to be friendly so that they can convince entrepreneurs to take their money. It's not their true nature, just something you need to do to get into the right deals. Investors are always worried about their reputation, not character - if you know the difference.

I learnt this lesson after getting kicked out of my company by VCs from NY (the story is not dramatically different than what Fred did at Twitter). My VCs always pretended to be incredibly supportive, but when we found ourselves in a tough spot, I saw the really ugly side of the VCs (making baseless threats to get the founders off the board, telling porkies to other investors to sullying the founders repuation, etc etc). In my experience, the east coast VCs are the worst - they play a lot more games / most of these guys are banker types. Most of them have never built a company before and have no clue what it takes to really build a successful startup (sorry, just because you sit on a board doesn't mean you understand the hard work, tears, daily ups and downs, personal sacrifice it takes to build a business).... These people know how to schmooze, and then stab you in the back if they don't get what they want....

Investors have 1 goal - maximize their ROI. They are your friend as long as they think they are getting the maximum return they can get. If you are an entrepreneur and you believe anything else, you are waiting to be screwed. As an entrepreneur, it's your job to protect yourself.

If you are an entrepreneur reading this, take the following advice from someone who got f by people like Fred.

1. Read Brad Feld's book "Venture Deals" before you take money from any investors. Make sure you know every single terminology in the term sheet (this is where the wolf in the sheep's clothing reference is really true - VCs will screw you over if you don't understand the term sheet).

2. Hire an exec coach or a successful entrepreneur who has seen the ups & downs on your advisory board - someone you trust completely (Never trust your board member to be this person - no matter what anyone says). The advisor and the exec coach are your 1st phone calls - they are fully aligned with, unlike VCs. IA good exec coach can really help if you are dealing with tough board situations. f you are part of YC, you always have that support.

3. If you are a valley based company, avoid all east coast VCs if you can. They are all made from the same dirty cloth.

4. Maintain board control as long as you can.

5. Try to negotiate and get a final say on the independent board seat (often hard to get).

6. Learn how to manage your board - this is probably the most important advice. You need to know how to play the game, so that in tough times you have enough support to keep your job. If you don't have a board control, then try to build allies - perhaps build a strong relationship with 1-2 board members that will support you when others are trying to screw (which they will!).

At the end of the day, it's all about leverage - as soon as you are about to get your first board member, think how you build leverage. There is nothing wrong in taking money from VCs, you need them, and they need you. But if you get into the relationship knowing this is not about friendship/relationship - it's just business, and when it comes to money, people act in all kinds of ways, you will not be under delusion. You will protect yourself from day one. Good luck!

Re: Founder Friendly

#17
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really how VCs work. Each VC is made up of funds. When EV was CEO and Twitter was the size it was, a lot of your fund's success might hinge on one or two companies in your portfolio. Without them exiting, it is hard to raise the next fund. If you can cash out your companies, show a huge return, it gets easier to raise your next fund at favorable terms.

You seem to be backing up what I was saying. The VC's LPs want huge returns. The VCs also want huge returns. The Twitter board chose the path it did to create those returns.

I am not backing up what you are saying. VCs want huge returns in a compressed timeline.

This comes at the cost of what is good for the company. Using Facebook as an example, you would sell Facebook when Viacom wanted to buy it for 75MM. Great huge return for investors for such a young company. Can turn around and show your fund had a huge exit. Especially great for a seed fund but terrible for the founder and the employees. Luckily, Zuckerberg had control and could thwart investors desire for a quick sale. [1]

I am totally not against VCs making a return but what I am against is VCs forcing premature exits. We may never know what Twitter could have been if the ecosystem stayed in-tact and they figured out how to monetize the whole thing and kept the user growth trajectory in place.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-companies-that-ever-t...

Re: Founder Friendly

#18
post #9
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Other portfolio investments of Fred's have followed a similar pattern of having the original CEO pushed out once they get to a certain level of success. And honestly, they should. Managing a company through 50, 100, 150, 500 and 1,000+ employee milestones requires very different leadership skillsets. There are very few founders who (1) understand this (2) are willing to party ways with their company (3) can navigat…

Zuck was about to be fired as well. The board realized they could not fire him because he had a very iron clad founder friendly legal construct. That's when Sandberg came into the picture. Also, Zuck made Sandberg promise she would never go after his position before she came on.

More than accelerated vesting, what did he have or could he have gotten and still raised money at that stage (2007?).

Re: Founder Friendly

#19
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be backing up what I was saying. The VC's LPs want huge returns. The VCs also want huge returns. The Twitter board chose the path it did to create those returns.

I am not backing up what you are saying. VCs want huge returns in a compressed timeline. This comes at the cost of what is good for the company. Using Facebook as an example, you would sell Facebook when Viacom wanted to buy it for 75MM. Great huge return for investors for such a young company. Can turn around and show your fund had a huge exit. Especially great for a seed fund but terrible for the founder and the em…

The "ecosystem" was on the path to destroying the company. The 3rd party Twitter clients had huge chunks of the Twitter userbase - back in 2010-2011, 20% of Twitter users used EchoFon, 11% used TweetDeck, etc.

If they had let the system continue, one of the clients could have gotten enough market share that they could have simply changed the backend to their own app, and none of the users would have batted an eye. Or Facebook could have bought up 2-3 of them quietly then forced Twitter to sell on the cheap.

It's easy to romanticize the wild-west period of Twitter's API being completely open for all use cases. However, it was, from a strategic perspective, extremely dangerous to the company's future - there's a reason why companies now know to build walled gardens.

Re: Founder Friendly

#20
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be backing up what I was saying. The VC's LPs want huge returns. The VCs also want huge returns. The Twitter board chose the path it did to create those returns.

I am not backing up what you are saying. VCs want huge returns in a compressed timeline. This comes at the cost of what is good for the company. Using Facebook as an example, you would sell Facebook when Viacom wanted to buy it for 75MM. Great huge return for investors for such a young company. Can turn around and show your fund had a huge exit. Especially great for a seed fund but terrible for the founder and the em…

It seems hard to argue that we outsiders know better that the "twitter-as-a-developer-platform" vision would have turned into a business much larger than what Twitter is now vs. the people on the actual board reviewing the finances. That seems to be what you're arguing. It seems that the people with all the numbers in front of them decided the returns would be better if they ditched the devs and sold brand ads. I'm just saying that's likely logical from the POV of VCs and their LPs.
Post reply on HN